Star Count Biases Expanded with Stellar Metamorphosis

http://vixra.org/pdf/1808.0638v1.pdf

It is observed that stars evolve into what are called “planets/exoplanets”, this meaning planets/exoplanets are simply evolved/evolving stars. Therefore the biases in counting stars need to be expanded considerably to account for transits and outdated classifications.

I wrote this last 2 nights ago so that people could see that astronomers are extremely biased. Remember, when Annie Jump Cannon and Edward C. Pickering began their classification scheme of the stars, they never included the ones that cooled beyond having visible spectrums, because there was nothing to see yet! How could they classify what was not observed?

This means that all stars below ~2,400 degrees Kelvin were never included in the original Harvard Classification scheme. This is a huge, huge deal, as it solidified the group think currently spread among academics that stars and planets are mutually exclusive. A deformation professionnelle continues to occur to this day. It is clear. Astronomers are specialists that claim to understand all of the stars, yet only really grasp a tiny fraction of them. They only are counting the stars that shine, which are all very young. The older and middle aged stars were completely ignored in their classification schemes. What's worse, is that they still classify the oldest stars as planets, which forces them to accept a mystery which wasn't ever a mystery to begin with.

How do planets form? Well, they are stars that cool, lose mass, shrink and differentiate themselves. So what happened is that the mystery came about from acceptance of the false idea that there are two mutually exclusive objects, stars and planets. Let this be a lesson to other "mysteries" scientists have. It is quite evident that there are no mysteries, the truth is that we probably accept ideas as true, which are actually false, and those block our understanding of nature. Think about that next time you see scientific mysteries.